linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] staging: exfat: Collapse redundant return code translations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191113181904.GD3284@kadam>
Date:   Wed, 13 Nov 2019 21:19:04 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletnieks@...edu>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/9] staging: exfat: Collapse redundant return code
 translations

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 09:09:56PM -0500, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> Now that we no longer use odd internal return codes, we can
> heave the translation code over the side, and just pass the
> error code back up the call chain.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c | 92 +++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 78 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c
> index 5d538593b5f6..a97a61a60517 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/exfat/exfat_super.c
> @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ static int ffsCreateFile(struct inode *inode, char *path, u8 mode,
>  	struct uni_name_t uni_name;
>  	struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
>  	struct fs_info_t *p_fs = &(EXFAT_SB(sb)->fs_info);
> -	int ret;
> +	int ret = 0;

Why are you adding this initializer?  It just disables static analysis
warnings about uninitialized variables and it creates a static analysis
warning about unused assignments.

>  
>  	/* check the validity of pointer parameters */
>  	if (!fid || !path || (*path == '\0'))

[ snip ]

> @@ -3161,12 +3102,7 @@ static int exfat_bmap(struct inode *inode, sector_t sector, sector_t *phys,
>  
>  	err = ffsMapCluster(inode, clu_offset, &cluster);
>  
> -	if (err) {
> -		if (err == -ENOSPC)
> -			return -ENOSPC;
> -		else
> -			return -EIO;
> -	} else if (cluster != CLUSTER_32(~0)) {
> +	if (!err && (cluster != CLUSTER_32(~0))) {
>  		*phys = START_SECTOR(cluster) + sec_offset;
>  		*mapped_blocks = p_fs->sectors_per_clu - sec_offset;
>  	}


If ffsMapCluster() fails then we return success now.  Is that
intentional?

regards,
dan carpener